Category talk:BSicon/railway/arrow

Index tables

(lNULf)	(NULf)	(lvNULf)  (lvNULfg)	(vNULf)  (vNULfg)
(lNULfq)	(NULfq)	(lvNULfgq)  (lvNULfq)	(vNULfgq)  (vNULfq)
(lNULg)	(NULg)	(lvNULg)  (lvNULgf)	(vNULg)  (vNULgf)
(lNULgq)	(NULgq)	(lvNULgfq)  (lvNULgq)	(vNULgfq)  (vNULgq)
(lDNULf)	(DNULf)	(lvDNULf)  (lvDNULfg)	(vDNULf)  (vDNULfg)
(lDNULfq)	(DNULfq)	(lvDNULfgq)  (lvDNULfq)	(vDNULfgq)  (vDNULfq)
(lDNULg)	(DNULg)	(lvDNULg)  (lvDNULgf)	(vDNULg)  (vDNULgf)
(lDNULgq)	(DNULgq)	(lvDNULgfq)  (lvDNULgq)	(vDNULgfq)  (vDNULgq)

position ↓		lines →	single				double (v…)								right (v…-)				left (v-…)
color (l…) →			black	white	black	white	black	white	black	white	black	white	black	white	black	white	black	white	black	white	black	white
direction →			forwards (…f)		backwards (…g)		forwards (…f)		backwards (…g)		forwards+ backwards (…fg)		backwards +forwards (…gf)		forwards (…f)		backwards (…g)		forwards (…f)		backwards (…g)
icon size ↘
middle center	normal	full
		half (d…)					—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	across (…q)	full													—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
		half (d…)									—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	diagonal (D…)	full														—	—	—		—	—	—
	diagonal across (D…q)															—		—		—		—
edges	start (…a)		—	—	—	—			—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	end (…e)		—	—			—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	start across (…aq)								—		—		—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	end across (…eq)		—	—			—	—	—		—		—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
direction →			inwards (…+c…)		outwards (…c…)		inwards (…+c…)		outwards (…c…)		inwards+ outwards (…+c…c…)		outwards +inwards (…c…+c…)		inwards (…+c…)		outwards (…c…)		inwards (…+c…)		outwards (…c…)
icon size ↘
corners	corner #1 (…c1)	full
	corner #2 (…c2)
	corner #3 (…c3)
	corner #4 (…c4)

Which table is better? Or both can/should be used? -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess the 1st table is now lacking all the corner icons… -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Still missing:

• A “slender”, half-width, version of each of the single-arrow or double-arrow across orthogonal icons (24 more icons; 10 done),
• two “one-missing” versions of each of the two-arrow icons (64 more icons; 22 done),
• back/ahead and left/right icons for orthogonal directions (80 more icons; 4 done),
• half-width versions of the above, for single line icons and doubles across (48 more icons; to be done),
• two "black and white mixed" icons of each of the two-arrow icons (64 more icons; to be done) (Not needed: see discussion),
• corner arrow pairs for double lines — together/crossing, white/black, each corner: 32 more icons. ( done), and
• corner arrows for double lines with one missing — left/right, white/black, each corner: 32 more icons. ( to be done)

Naming

Sense

f and g = forward and backward; no problem there. However, I am at a loss trying to figure out why fq and gq instead of l(eft) and r(ight)?
(IMHO, q should only be used when there is 180° rotational symmetry; and also we have yet to settle on an acceptable nomenclature to describe the diagonals.) Useddenim (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to be at loss at. As you know from other discussions, unlike you I favour that "q" should be used for any icon where the mainline runs across, regardless of symmetry, assuming that the default direction is from the left to the right of the diagram (just like regular icons have a top to bottom default direction). -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Direction

Diagonals

Er... excuse-me, but wouldn't it be better to name the diagonal arrows using the ÜW icon's conventions. Eg, to call  (lDNULf) « lNUL2 »?
Sincerley --Pic-Sou (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"ÜW" indicates lines meeting the corner of an icon at a 45º angle, not necessarily diagonals (most often not, actually); I would expect that any icon including it (or any other line shape indicator, such as the simple "STR") to show a line segment with such feature, not a non-line overlay/legende element. A possible naming using "ÜW" would be thus something like "vÜWfg legende" (instead of "vDNULfg", etc). The abbandonment of "legende" was being discussed at the time I made these icons, so I went for an alternative approach, using the icon ID "NUL" — the "D" preffix was thus prefered to indicate diagonality, as per Circeus’ renaming proposals. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile I understand you dont mean to use "ÜW" in the names of these, just to use the corner number conventions instead of the preffix "D". Apologies, and discussion follows. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

(Pic-Sou: please note that your "Er…" might be construed as a positioning of superiority on your part over my icon naming options. Sadly such position is severely challenged should anyone compare your BS icons SVG skills with mine. It would be advisable to leave off such misleading onomatopeas in the future.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't get that from the "er", it just seemed to be an interjection to me (but then, what do I know?) Useddenim (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Excuse-me, my english is not very good, and I thought « Er » was like « Euh » in French : an interjection explaining doubt, puzzling... Sorry... --Pic-Sou (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I was being over sensitive, sorry. -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Having said that, adding both D and 2+4 to whichever root is used both is repetitive and redundant. Useddenim (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is — or would be: Nobody is, I think, proposing to add both "D" and "2+4". -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Corner?

lDNULf

File:BSicon ÜWc2.svg

ÜWc2

File:BSicon ÜWc24.svg

ÜWc24

STR2+4

Or perhaps include the c to clearly indicate that it references the corner lNULc2? Useddenim (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

But does  (lDNULf) reference corner 2? Anymore than  (STR2+4) does? Note that "STR2+4" is (or could be) "DSTR" using Circeus’ naming. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

OK then, how 'bout lNUL+4| to indicate that the direction of travel is "from corner 4'"? Useddenim (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If we can agree that the "f" and/or "g" preffixes on a "NUL" icon root signify unambiguously arrows for overlay, then the simplest and surest way to create arrows that match any given straight icon is to replace the that icon’s root and replace it with "NUL". Therefore, as much as  (lNULf) is named after  (STR) (compare with  (STRf)); in this case  (lDNULf) (and  (lDNULg)) match  (STR2+4), so the new names according to this idea would be lNULf2+4 and lNULg2+4. Sounds good. (That doesnt mean "D" is a bad idea, just it is not necessary for this.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be easyer to only put in the name the corner pointed by the arrow ... "lNULc2" is not ambiguous at all! --Pic-Sou (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is ambiguous to indicate only the destination corner on such an icon. Look, all these point to c2:  (STR2),  (STR2+4),  (STR2+1),  (STR2+r),  (STR2+l),  (STR23),  (STR+2), etc. An arrowhead on the midpoint of any of these would have to be placed on different places of the icon area, and at different orientations. That’s why it is ambiguous to indicate the destination corner only. (Ditto for origin corner.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

So I understand you also want to crate arrows to overlap on  (STR2+r),  (STR2+l),  (STR23) and  (STR+2)? OK, in that case, you're right, the title lNUL2+4 is better. --Pic-Sou (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don’t plan to do it, but the need for that kind of overlay arrows (especially the widest arcs  (STR2) and  (STR2+r)) is likely and it would be a bad idea to sabotage further naming for no good reason. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Corner!

lNULc2

lNUL+c2

Meanwhile it downed on me that actual arrows on each of the four corners (as opposed to arrows on the middle center poiting to each of them) are a good idea — and I created and uploaded them. Some notes:

Names

Yeah, I botched it, buy adding/leaving a needless "D"; will have to get rid of it! :-(

(Fixed now, yay! -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC))

Placement

• This should overlay good enough on any track going to a corner, except maybe the tightest curves; it is 100% accurate for straights going at 45º, of course.
• This would be perfect if centered exactly where icons meet, like the bridge in   (ÜWul), but that would split each arrow in 4 different icons — like this is good enough and much simpler.
• Compared with, say,  (lDNULf), these new icons  (lNULc2) and  (lNUL+c4) allow for the icon to be taken over by some other feature (like  (NUL+c2※ WYE23) , File:BSicon ÜWolr+orl.svg (NUL+c4※ ÜWolr+orl) , et c.); this agrees with the fact that usually these arrows are not named in the diagram and don’t need a row of their own in it. (And all this justifies also next-to-edge arrows for orthogonal lines, hmmmm. And parallel-lines’ versions, too. Hmmmm…)

-- Tuválkin ✉ 23:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

NUL vs. *ARR

And I do not understand why you choosed the root "NUL". Why not "ARR"? (for "arrow") --Pic-Sou (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

NUL because it signifies "empty" (i.e. sans track), and is multilingual. "Arrow" isn't (DE: Pfeil; FR: flèche). Useddenim (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Above I stated this presupposition: «If we can agree that the "f" and/or "g" preffixes on a "NUL" icon root signify unambiguously arrows for overlay». Means that NUL (means no track, as explained above) and a simple "f/g" may be enough to explain that this is a direction arrow (and cannot be anything else), as it has a direction (f/g) and no track (NUL). Is it unambiguous? I think so, because what else could a NULf or NULg be? (It can be though unambiguous but still unclear, obscure, far-fetched. That doesn’t bother me, but surely a specific icon name would fix that.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, if we are to use NUL for direction arrows, then some exisitng icons (all in the  (hNUL) group) are going to have be renamed. (See this discussion.) Useddenim (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

NUL is means arrow only when used along with "g/f". I would imagine that lhNULf would be a trackless icon with both elevated markers and an arrow ahead:  . If that’s not clear and unambiguous, then we should have a separate icon rootname for arrows as suggested by Pic-Sou. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I can not believe my reading eyes. So "NUL" is an id, really? -DePiep (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

When you drop that act and stop behaving like the baroness who found a cockroach in her tea and is enquiring the kitchen staff about it, maybe then your questions will make some cogent sense and other people will take you seriously and will try to answer your quearies. Till then, have fun alone. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Color

Two-color icons needed?

Black and white mixed is not necessary: While white arrows are meant to be overlaid on regular tracks of whichever color, the black arrows are meant to be “hanging”, usually as part of a legend key (thence the "l" in their names).

Note that existing arrow icons (not NUL/overlay) are always white, even on the palest colors:

 (STRf)    (uSTRf)
 (exSTRf)  (uexSTRf)

(The only exception are tunnels, whose out-of-track arrows should probably be revised:  (tSTRf)…)

Maybe a black icon could be useful overlaid on a yellow or other really light track, for contrast, but even so the need for two-color two-arrow icons would show only for close parallel lines’ icons where one of the lines is of this light color and the other is darker. Highly unlikely to warrant a set of pre-made icons. Especially because even that unlikely result can be achieved by overlaying of two one-side-only double-arrow icons (still to be made).

-- Tuválkin ✉ 15:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I created  (tlv-NULf) in line colour specifically to overlay parallel tunnel lines:  . Useddenim (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

 (utlvNULf) &  (utlvNULg) added. Useddenim (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Duplicates

 (NULgf) vs.   (NULfa),  (NULff) vs.   (NULga)

Mine were uploaded a month earlier ;) I guess that yours follow the naming patterns for the rest of these arrows, but mine follow the general naming pattern for other icons... So?.. YLSS (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)